On corruption

One might hear the argument that #capitalism, with its basis in #greed is most susceptible to #corruption but in reality it’s socialism that is most lends itself to corrupt practices, by: increasing poverty, causing people to be more desperate for basic (but in socialism quickly unaffordable) amenities such as food, clothing, shelter, drink (water, not alcoholic per se).
Also, not to forget: in socialism, all pay (apart from the party leadership, of course) is equal, regardless of work. So the sewer-cleaner has the same pay as the farm inspector/ harvest collector who can be bought off with a small sack full of potatoes,to feed the inspector’s hungry family, and turn a blind eye when the farmer sells another portion of his harvest on the black market. Meaning that socialism requires thousands of civil servants to violate their own interests, for the good of the socialist dream of the party-leader. How do you think that will go over time?

Compare this to the situation under #capitalism/#voluntaryism: Where the level of #wealth is considerably higher, while also being more fairly distributed (not all wealth is reserved for only the party-leadership)
Poor people in the west typically have, say, a car, a wardrobe with fresh changes of clothing. Sure it may not be a #Lamborghini, or Hugo Boss-clothes, but under voluntsryanism, you have a choice of plenty of cheaper brands of both,rather than just the one brand with the considerable waiting lines that invariably result from central planning.
Capitalism harnesses that greed and uses it for good: this is plain Adam Smith: the baker does not supply the hungry with fresh bread out of the goodness of his own heart, but out of his desire to buy a house to live in. The house huilder builds & sells the house at a reasonable price for his own selfish reasons: if he would insist on a price nobody would be able to afford, he wouldn’t be able to sell the house to recoup his investment. Meaning that in capitalism, all people benefit if the rest also benefits.
Of course: the best way to avoid corruption is by removing the opportunity for people to get corrupted, namely government with its regulations, licensing restrictions, etc.

Again, they don’t get it

Or they sincerely don’t care. The announced British & French bans on “fossil” fuels by 2040, will go at the expense of huge waste of energy and enormous social upheaval and empoverishment. The considerable number of people that will lose their jobs (car mechanics, oil rig/fuel station personell and so forth) will pale in comparison to the emormous costs everyone will be presented with, in order to buy a new electric car, which even with subsidy is very expensive. If every tax-victim willl be forced to buy such a car, then stealing money from everybody, in order to give it right back to them, is a preposterous #waste of #energy, manpower, and thus also money! The prerogative of owning a car will, once again, be left to the elite (is that the #equality the enviros are always bleating about?) Just like the good old #Soviet-era when big Zil-limos were reserved for the party leadership.
So, everybody will have to get rid of their existing car (/motorbike) and replace it with an EV, all of them in one fell swoop. Apart from the daunting logistics of that (not even a skilled #centralPlanner will be able to guide that process). So, this is probably a disguised #social #engineering, a tyrannical measure: abolish #private #ownership of means of #transport. And force people to ake public transport or ride sharing.
The amount of energy that will get wasted by dumping perfectly useable cars on the rustheap, is considerable.

Gulag 2: money

So I’m back from special exposition in the Resistance Museum in Amsterdam (http://www.verzetsmuseum.org). And I would like to say a few things about how it relates to contemporary politics:
Firstly: there is the lesson it taught about money. (And how fiat currency is not momey). How did gold get adopted as a money? Because lots of people wanted it for its looks and properties., plus it has industrial applicability, which is why people substituted gold payments for direct #barter (labour is bartered for gold: gold in turn is bartered for goods & services, making it easier for people to find a place where people would accept their skills/labour, and vice versa
In the Gulag-camps, having good shoes could make the difference between #live or #death. So people used them for payments (for what? Perhaps for some fly-invested grass- soupcsme people would cook, in their so very scarce free time? – and often the flies were the only source of protein) because real boots (not pieces of bark strung together) were so scarce that owning a pair would put you at risk of being stolen from.
If your shoes broke, you had to walk barefoot through the snow. Or in the uranium mines, or in the woods, for the logging operation. You wouldn’t get sent home on sick leave or whatever. That’s what made shoes so very valuable and suitable as a #currency/#money.

(The second thing I had to say, I said in another post, just follow the tags Gulag or Goelag (Dutch language posts)

Social atrophy

This is roughly a translation of the post https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/sociale-atrofie/

Social atrophy is what happens when the government interferes with society.

I was inspired to this when Judge Napolitano quoted a bible commandment (he is a Christian): the bible command christians to help their fellow man. By stealing money in order to give charity to said fellow man, the government denies him the opportunity to do it himself, denying him the chance to get into heaven.
I am not religious, but the same principle applies to society at large, because when the government gets in between the needy and the wealthy, social cohesion gets reduced. People don’t learn what it’s like to help the needy: this is bad for society. This way, the government denies people heaven on earth. The social instinct atrophies.
So the society the government creates, will be a bunch of myopic egotists, which they will seize as justification for more of the cause.

Why?

I just realized: those assassins, that manned the towers along the iron curtain, what was wrong with them?
What drove them to it, to kill their fellow human beings?

  1. Sadism?
  2. The urge to blindly follow orders? (Milgram/Nuremberg)
  3. Bloodlust?
  4. Fear of reprisals?
  5. Bribery (salary)?

Re 1: The desire to keep their fellow humans from escaping the open-air prison
Re 2: part of the “2 Stans” / the Nuremberg defense (I was just following orders)
Re3: the wish to kill people, since government is an institution of #aggression, it isnit surprising that it would attract people with a propensity for this
Re 4: this would become an infinitely long list of people willing to shoot each other
Re 5: Even so, it would involve sadism, because surely some border-assassins would some day find out that live was hell for the people, and they had a very good reason for wanting to escape, and border-murderer was quite a lowly job in the hierarchy of government, quite far removed from the snobby party-apparatus (elite) which got the serious amounts of money/privilege, and kept their hands clean. Besides, I thought all socialists were supposed to make the same salary, diferentiation in reward for different jobs (meritocracy) was a capitalist thing, Marx preferred “to each according to his need.”

The seeds of its own destruction?

Friedrich #Engels was able to finance Karl #Marx, because Engels was the son of a wealthy entrepreneur. Engels and Marx both famously opposed entrepreneurship. Marxism inspired communist dictatorship, which as we know was a disaster for the esstern-European people (proletariat), unlike #capitalism, which had lifted the western worker up to great affluence, even the poorest households tended to be able to acquire toothpaste, unlike even the elite in the #communist block.
So, basically, #capitalism made possible the ideology that spent 3/4 of a decade fighting it (and didn’t really stop with the collapse of the USSR; there are so many communist activists in the west that try to overthrow the free-market-way of life – Al #Gore, Naomi #Klein, …) So did capitalism carry the seeds of its own destruction?
I tend to disagree. Capitalism (I use that as “free-market”) simply means that people are free to make their own choices, unlike communism/socialism, which is all about the state imposing its will upon others. Since capitalism is a different kind of ideology (Strictly speaking it’s not about #politics), unlike #communism which is about how many roles the evil institution should play) it is not an ideology that fights other ideologies. I know, the cold war between #communist east and capitalist west disproves that, except it wasn’t really between communism and capitalism, now, was it? It was about control of the earth by one nation or by another nation (#4thReich), it just so happened that the west, in spite of all its socialist faults (and there were so many: starting with Central Banking, over-regulation of markets and more) tended to be a bit freer & wealthier than the east. So socialism, with its more violent nature, tends to destroy anything it gets in contact with, and is the side most likely to pick a fight and attempt to impose itself anywhere it can, because socialism is all about politics, and politicians desire power for (abuse of) power’s sake. Businessmen desire a comfortable life, so wealth for comfort’s sake. Hence proper capitalism is not about abuse of power, so proper capitalists don’t really care if the state is governed one way or another: of course, the presence of a state tends to diminish the virtues of capitalism, states automatically lean more toward socialism (totalitarianism).

Remember the iron curtain?

The iron curtain was barbed wire strung from the Baltic sea to the Mediterranean sea, with at every hop skip and a jump: a watchtower with armed guards, ready to machine gun every person, trying to escape the worker’s paradise. If that does not define #sadism, then wtf does?
#communism, #socialism

Go be very ashamed, #Klaver, #Roemer and of course, #Sanders!